RootsChat.Com

Yes, it was the 1871 census, going via search criteria tabulated, then selecting "census", then "1870s",  and it simply wouldn't let me see England 1871 that way. I'll use the format you show and "report back". Thanks.

! The "Danny Dyer" episode was surely comedy?

As others have said, it's very hard to get further back than 1600s - even with unusual surnames. I've stared in frustration at loads of baptisms where only first names are given (Edmund, son of Thomas, etc...) so certain that the surname should be the one I want, but - if it ain't there, it ain't there! Records rarely go back uninterrupted in the early days.
The various religious issues at about that time also led to complications - I believe that many RC priests carried only a pocket-book personal record of baptisms, and obviously many of those would be lost. Recusant branches of families sometimes get mislaid, or become dead ends.
"Your" family may well have been there all the time. KGarrad's advice is always good and sound. Good luck.

Ity is sad that the various "shames" and problems that so many families seem to have encountered meant that they took measures that have made them so elusive. I've had some really good hel0p to find one line in OH's family history, that I'd never ever have thought of myself - my mob were all so straightforward - but another researcher applied lateral thinking that then allowed us to backtrack ona prove what had happened.
It was a simple straightforward family line that I was given long ago that got me into this .... but I've found that digging around in odd corners is totally fascinating, and done so ever since!

A good end to an excellent set of programmes - I do hope that the BBC intends to do more, before too long?
I suspect that the "doing their own research"  bit is often staged, so perhaps it's just she was being straightforward and not pretending to have been "mouse on" with it?